quote: "Men Are Not To Be Essentially Distinguished...": Cosmopolitan Foundations of Freemasonry
by Andreas Onnerfors
quote: This paper is an attempt to identify ideas on world citizenship in a series of fundamental texts related to freemasonry. It is a sketch rather than a final product, one typical characteristic of a working paper, it is a rough stone as compared to...
quote: After this formulation of a cosmopolitan code of conduct, Wieland in the second chapter of Das Geheimnis des Kosmopolitenordens discusses the political principles of the cosmopolitans and their relation to the civic society. Good cosmopolitans are quiet citizens. They never use violence to achieve their goals and never take part in any conspiracy, uprising, civil war, revolution or regicide. The only weapon of resistance allowed is reason, which also constitutes the only form of government. ( ) In the conflicts between different parties of the state, the cosmopolitan has to remain neutral and impartial. However, there are reasons to choose sides, for instance, when one party is threatened by suppression, or when the other party treats it inhumanely. A cosmopolitan thus never disturbs the public peace, and remains within the legal framework of the state he happens to inhabit.
quote: In the aftermath of the French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars there grew a resistance against an entirely rational definition of world citizenship. Napoleon’s dominion over Europe was perceived as a threat of a universalising force able to erase some of the continent’s core values. Faced with the destruction of a political order that had given sense to the German-speaking states since its foundation by Charles Magne in the 9th century, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation – finally dissolved by Napoleon in 1806 and thus erasing the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 as the framework of European statehood – Novalis attempted to secure at least the concept of “Holiness” for a new cosmopolitan vision of Europe. Opposing the “sacred” with the “secular” he invented a basic dialectic pattern of world explanation (as later developed in Hegelianism and Marxism) and saw in their synthesis a dream of the future unity of humankind: the secular is reconciled with the sacred in the lodge, receiving there the kiss of brotherhood.
Important note. In the draft, this woman is mentioned: Margaret Jacob. She is the leading expert in Freemasonry. Her homepage.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arwa Like every other important event/organization/thought, these White Jewish writers are attempting to claim Freemasonry as their own. Most attempt to connect Freemasonry with the Crusades and the Knights Templars as Freemasonry origin. I just watched (with much knashing of teeth) as the History Channel presented their special on the Origins Of Freemasonry with false claims of it's origins being England/Scotland. Actually, Freemasonry originated in ancient Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: Arwa Like every other important event/organization/thought, these White Jewish writers are attempting to claim Freemasonry as their own. Most attempt to connect Freemasonry with the Crusades and the Knights Templars as Freemasonry origin. I just watched (with much knashing of teeth) as the History Channel presented their special on the Origins Of Freemasonry with false claims of it's origins being England/Scotland. Actually, Freemasonry originated in ancient Egypt.
Freemanonery originated in Egypt and infiltrated into the Kaballah, the Kaballa teacheing were picked up by the Knights Templar who broght it back to Scotland.-That is the what I have heard.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I made a post dealing with kemetic signs and symbols in our modern world. I'll bump it for good measure.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
MelaninKing (welcome back! Nice name btw ),
I do not deny the AE's connection, but you can learn the European's version. I believe we never should underestimate the influence of Freemasonry Society.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Arwa, I'm back cause I actually missed you.
Europeans have kidnapped Freemasonry as they have everything not actually theirs. If you are interested in the European angle and how it relates to the Templars, I suggest you read, Born In Blood by Professor John J. Robinson.
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: Hi Arwa, I'm back cause I actually missed you.
Europeans have kidnapped Freemasonry as they have everything not actually theirs. If you are interested in the European angle and how it relates to the Templars, I suggest you read, Born In Blood by Professor John J. Robinson.
The funny part is that Europeans made rules that Black could not Join Feemason sects, this is why you see "Black" Masons..lol. I mean Freemasnory is Egyptian and Babylonian in origin but Manly Egyptian Mystism...as can be seen in the Torah by the Golden Calf. Masons follow a Black African Mystic sect and forbid Africans from joining.
"Het-Heru:" The Cow Goddess Of Spiritual Blessing
Meaning "the House of The Lord," Het-Heru (or "Hathor" as the Greeks pronounced it) is the symbol of MOTHER NATURE as the "house" in which we live.. in other words, the World around us. She was invoked for every form of blessings that Mother Nature can give; Life, Health, Strength, Fertility, Wealth and the Joy of Life. Adored at many Temples in Egypt including Medenet-Habu in the Sinai (where Moses and the Israelites stopped on their journey briefly) Hathor survives in Hebrew tradition as "the golden calf" of Exodus. Those born of her Totemic Lineage are deeply devotion-oriented and prone to lives of BLESSING OTHERS rather than self-service. From Education of the young to Healing the body, mind and soul, Het-Heru can be found wherever JOY is being celebrated as a Blessing. ^^^^ that The Cow in Egyptian Mystic religion.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
The author of the article you linked should do better research before presenting himself as an expert of the so-called "Egyptian freemansory".
"The original concept of One God or Monotheism has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. It was first introduced in Kemet during the 25th Dynasty 1270 B.C. by Pharaoh Akhnaton . At this time, this Pharaoh had a HighPriest named Moses. Therefore, the derived 1st Commandment of Moses: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" came directly out of the original ancient Kemeti/Egyptian/ Afrikan "Forty-two Negative Confessions," not from Mount Sinai."
Akhenaton was of the 18th dynasty not 25th, obviously. And there is no high priest recorded of the Amarna named "Moses".
"In terms of symbols, the colors red, white and blue of the US flag that symbolizes the American sign of global power and control are derived from the original ancient Kemetic/Egyptian Red Crown of the South, White Crown of the North and the Blue Crown of War that symbolized the Masonic system of governance, communal way of life and being as a result of the unification of Upper and Lower Kemet/Egypt by Pharaoh Narmer in 3200 B.C. The ideas of "government of the people, by the people and for the people" also came out of this ancient system and not from the thought process of President Thomas Jefferson. These original ideas/ideals came out of the system of governance and decision-making called Afrikan Communalism in ancient Kemet."
1) The "blue crown of war" was first depicted during the second intermidiate period and new kingdom in particular the 18th and 19th dynasties on the so-called war pharaos, Ahmose-Ramesses II , didn't exist during Menes/Narmers time.
2) The white crown is the symbol of upper Egypt not Lower Egypt and the red crown is of lower Egypt not upper Egypt.
This article you lnked has no credibility, the author can't even get some basic information right.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something to ponder (if you did not know alredy):
the hypocrisy of liberal imperialism If you want to understand — if you think you can bear to understand — the hypocrisy of liberal, Anglo-American imperialism, I don’t think there is any better way of doing it than studying the history of Freemasonry, and to a slightly lesser extent, the history of post-1688 ‘Glorious Revolution’ Anglicanism. Freemasonry, in its Anglo-American form, is the absolute quintessence of liberal hypocrisy, in every single respect: religiously, racially, sexually, geopolitically, culturally, and intellectually. Its ability to deploy terms like “Freedom”, “Justice” and “Equality” quite unblushingly to mean whatever it wants them to mean is absolutely unrivalled. I have just been reading a book called “Builders of Empire: Freemasonry and British Imperialism, 1717-1927″ by Jessica L Harland-Jacobs (Univ of N Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2007) which makes this absolutely clear. There are still a few loose ends: she doesn’t in my opinion give enough attention to the other streams of Freemasonry, those not in accordance with the criteria of the Grand Lodge of England, French Freemasonry in particular. She minimises the extent to which non-English Freemasonry went its own, rather less hypocritical and more interesting way. She makes it clear that in practical terms north American Freemasonry has always managed to be very closely allied with the English, in a sort of woolly ‘fraternal’ way. It has never, to put it the other way, been actually hostile to English Freemasonry, whereas I don’t think I would be exaggerating if I said that French and other continental European Freemasonries, and the various extra-European Freemasonries allied to them, have in fact been hostile to the English version and its presumptions. To quote an interesting but regrettably brief passage from the book:
quote: “Latin Masonry” was the term twentieth-century British Masons used to describe European Grand Lodges and their offshoots with which the English Grand Lodges had broken off communications in the late 1870s. The original cause of the rift was the decision on the part of the Grand Orient of France to admit atheists into the brotherhood in 1878. British Masons and their allies throughout the world had therefore refused to take part in various internationalist movements undertaken by the representatives of “Latin Masonry” in the 1890s and early 1900s. In 1919 the European Masons proposed the formation of a Masonic International Association. At the first congress, held in October 1921, representatives from most European grand lodges, as well as the Grand Lodge of New York and the Grand Orient of Turkey, met to discuss their common aims. The grand lodges of Britain, the empire, and the United States (except New York) refused to send representatives to the congress.
It is not altogether clear whether this dispute was ever really resolved, see here. An amusing footnote from the same book:
quote:Recently returned from Africa in 1922 General Sir Reginald Wingate (governor general of the Sudan between 1899 and 1916, High Commissioner for Egypt from 1917 to 1919, District Grand Master of Egypt and Sudan from 1901 to 1920) noted the existence of many lodges that worked in Arabic and “various European languages.” Describing some of these lodges as “centres of sedition and even of revolution,” he happily reported that “British Freemasonry is entirely free of any such taint.”
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) In the conflicts between different parties of the state, the cosmopolitan has to remain neutral and impartial. However, there are reasons to choose sides, for instance, when one party is threatened by suppression, or when the other party treats it inhumanely. A cosmopolitan thus never disturbs the public peace, and remains within the legal framework of the state he happens to inhabit. 
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic